Re: Publishing Re: Veritox 2004 Review Paper & Kell...

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony,

When I write, I always try to cite references so you all can understand the background information of my point of view. Yet, I don't get that back from you, so that I can better understand your point of view and why you think how you think. Could you help me out here?

From your post, citing me. "Attached is information of the significance in this ruling. It is a biggie in mold litigation." Then you wrote:

"1. Disagree on both counts".

Can you tell me, scientifically, why you disagree? I am just not seeing anyway one could think that the whole foundation for the defense argument of "not plausible, improbable and junk science" getting called what it is ("not plausible, improbable and junk science). -how could that NOT be huge? No longer can the mantra of "mold and mycotoxins can't cause these illnesses" be sung by 'scientists'. The hollow peg leg they were standing on, just got jerked out from under them. What am I missing?

"2. If it is as you contend "moving the science forward", then by the same token many plantiffs' experts' testimony should be excluded as well (think I got the apostrophes correct)"

What does the fact that the defense just got called on the carpet for bogus junk science, have to do with what plaintiff experts are saying? Can you cite for me specifically WHAT plaintiff expert needs to be shot or what scientific papers should be burned, simply because the defense just got publicly nailed for junk science? No offense meant, but this answer you gave appears a bit childish to me. Sorta like, "My Momma? Well your Momma is so fat....."

"3. All you seem to have is a hammer, and thus everything looks like nail."

Thank you for understanding what a hammer this one really is. I will take that as the compliment I know you meant! Can you show me at least even a few little nails?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

1. You stated:

"When I write, I always try to cite references so you all can understand the background information of my point of view. Yet, I don't get that back from you, so that I can better understand your point of view and why you think how you think."

It's true you cite sources, but almost all are secondary. For instance, have you read the paper cited by the Veritox folks? You didn't actually cite it till recently, yet you posted a similar awhile back.

I think I cite very often, or note that I am withholding a citation. The listserv folks can judge that themselves.

Oh - I clearly understand your point of view - and it is a point.

2. You stated:

"Can you tell me, scientifically, why you disagree? I am just not seeing anyway one could think that the whole foundation for the defense argument of "not plausible, improbable and junk science" getting called what it is ("not plausible, improbable and junk science). -how could that NOT be huge? No longer can the mantra of "mold and mycotoxins can't cause these illnesses" be sung by 'scientists'. The hollow peg leg they were standing on, just got jerked out from under them. What am I missing?"

Scientifically, the conclusion is not ill-formed. The manner in which they supported it (methodology) was insufficiently conceived - both from a Frye and Daubert/Joiner/Kumho standpoint [incidentally Joiner (1997) also excluded animal testing also - for the Plaintiff]. I could support their premise very well, showing the that the foundations of what that did are generally accepted and that the of one study in absentia of others has been used a number of times to set acceptable exposure or determine the unlikeliness of disease. The mantra has never been "mold and mycotoxins can't cause these illnesses" - it is that the probability under most circumstances, that mycotoxins should not. As for the hollow leg, if you fly, you depend on a hollow leg called an airplane - it isn't magic but explaining that the skin of a plane could be designed to take the stresses of flight would be difficult to properly construct and convey. Ever stand on a coke can - put some product in it and it'll hold well - don't and it won't. Put some product in your argument and it'll hold.

Incidentally Sharon, I have been an expert at about a 60/40 ratio (plaintiff/defense). I've had Daubert challenges (plaintiff side only) - federal, state, local - going back to 1994 (just after Daubert came out). I have a pretty good feel for the ability to support a case - or tell the client not to use me - which happens. A decision like this makes my work (and any expert's work) on either side more difficult - not easier.

3. You stated:

What does the fact that the defense just got called on the carpet for bogus junk science, have to do with what plaintiff experts are saying? Can you cite for me specifically WHAT plaintiff expert needs to be shot or what scientific papers should be burned, simply because the defense just got publicly nailed for junk science? No offense meant, but this answer you gave appears a bit childish to me. Sorta like, "My Momma? Well your Momma is so fat....."

Sharon, sharon, what's fair is fair [except for Shakespeare]. If one expert is held to the proper production of support then another should be as well. Thus the evidence that mycotoxins do cause harm orally in animals cannot be used to show the it could also cause it by inhalation (thus a restriction of a plaintiff's expert) - it's a two edged sword. If you can't see that then perhaps you should re-enter a reading comprehension course.

4. You stated:

"Thank you for understanding what a hammer this one really is. I will take that as the compliment I know you meant! Can you show me at least even a few little nails?"

I don't eat with a hammer.

I don't cut wood with a hammer.

I don't like hammer time.

It wasn't a compliment. It was a picture that would hopefully let you understand that you're showing yourself as narrow minded and that you could use another tool in the toolbox.

Tony

........................................................................... "Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PEpH2, LLCPO Box 34140Indianapolis, IN 46234 cell90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%â„ This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this statement.

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:00 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Publishing Re: Veritox 2004 Review Paper & Kell...

Hi Tony,

When I write, I always try to cite references so you all can understand the background information of my point of view. Yet, I don't get that back from you, so that I can better understand your point of view and why you think how you think. Could you help me out here?

From your post, citing me. "Attached is information of the significance in this ruling. It is a biggie in mold litigation." Then you wrote:

"1. Disagree on both counts".

Can you tell me, scientifically, why you disagree? I am just not seeing anyway one could think that the whole foundation for the defense argument of "not plausible, improbable and junk science" getting called what it is ("not plausible, improbable and junk science). -how could that NOT be huge? No longer can the mantra of "mold and mycotoxins can't cause these illnesses" be sung by 'scientists'. The hollow peg leg they were standing on, just got jerked out from under them. What am I missing?

"2. If it is as you contend "moving the science forward", then by the same token many plantiffs' experts' testimony should be excluded as well (think I got the apostrophes correct)"

What does the fact that the defense just got called on the carpet for bogus junk science, have to do with what plaintiff experts are saying? Can you cite for me specifically WHAT plaintiff expert needs to be shot or what scientific papers should be burned, simply because the defense just got publicly nailed for junk science? No offense meant, but this answer you gave appears a bit childish to me. Sorta like, "My Momma? Well your Momma is so fat....."

"3. All you seem to have is a hammer, and thus everything looks like nail."

Thank you for understanding what a hammer this one really is. I will take that as the compliment I know you meant! Can you show me at least even a few little nails?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Sharon-

In response to your question: “Can you show me at

least even a few little nails?”

How about this: there are many contributing factors in an

indoor environment besides just mold and mycotoxins that have the ability to

make people sick.

I’m not quite sure why I’m even bothering to

say this to you, as it is something I’ve been saying over and over for

quite some time, but… Until you start looking at the bigger

picture, you will continue to be confused and frustrated, and in return will

confuse and frustrate others…

I mean no disrespect.

Stacey Champion

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...

Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 6:00

PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re:

Publishing Re: Veritox 2004 Review Paper & Kell...

Hi Tony,

When I write, I always try to cite

references so you all can understand the background information of my point of

view. Yet, I don't get that back from you, so that I can better understand your

point of view and why you think how you think. Could you help me out

here?

From your post, citing me. " Attached

is information of the significance in this ruling. It is a biggie in mold

litigation. " Then you wrote:

" 1. Disagree on both

counts " .

Can you tell me, scientifically, why you

disagree? I am just not seeing anyway one could think that the whole

foundation for the defense argument of " not plausible, improbable and junk

science " getting called what it is ( " not plausible, improbable and

junk science). -how could that NOT be huge? No longer can the mantra of

" mold and mycotoxins can't cause these illnesses " be sung by

'scientists'. The hollow peg leg they were standing on, just

got jerked out from under them. What am I missing?

" 2. If it is as you contend

" moving the science forward " , then by the same token many plantiffs'

experts' testimony should be excluded as well (think I got the apostrophes

correct) "

What does the fact that the defense just

got called on the carpet for bogus junk science, have to do with what plaintiff

experts are saying? Can you cite for me specifically WHAT plaintiff

expert needs to be shot or what scientific papers should be burned,

simply because the defense just got publicly nailed for junk

science? No offense meant, but this answer you gave appears a bit childish

to me. Sorta like, " My Momma? Well your Momma is so fat..... "

" 3. All you seem to have is a

hammer, and thus everything looks like nail. "

Thank you for understanding what a hammer

this one really is. I will take that as the compliment I know you

meant! Can you show me at least even a few little nails?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

1. You stated:

"When I write, I always try to cite references so you all can understand the background information of my point of view. Yet, I don't get that back from you, so that I can better understand your point of view and why you think how you think."

It's true you cite sources, but almost all are secondary. For instance, have you read the paper cited by the Veritox folks? You didn't actually cite it till recently, yet you posted a similar awhile back.

Of course I have read it. And so did the judge. I have read both version 2000, 2004. If I am quoting "secondary sources" and you are of the opinion these "secondary sources" are not accurate quotes, then what am I missing? Are you saying it should be accepted scientific protocol to take rodent studies, apply some mathematical extrapolations and deduce all human illness is not possible - based solely on this one review paper?

I think I understand. Enlighten me as to what I am missing.

I think I cite very often, or note that I am withholding a citation. The listserv folks can judge that themselves.

I think you do too. I have learned much from you. But on this one, you just dismissed what I wrote without providing any logic for your dismissal. What do you mean, you are withholding a citation? I don't understand your logic for this statement. What citation? Why would you withhold it?

Oh - I clearly understand your point of view - and it is a point.

Right back atcha. Only I don't clearly understand the LOGIC for your point cuz you haven't shown me anything to support it.

2. You stated:

"Can you tell me, scientifically, why you disagree? I am just not seeing anyway one could think that the whole foundation for the defense argument of "not plausible, improbable and junk science" getting called what it is ("not plausible, improbable and junk science). -how could that NOT be huge? No longer can the mantra of "mold and mycotoxins can't cause these illnesses" be sung by 'scientists'. The hollow peg leg they were standing on, just got jerked out from under them. What am I missing?"

Scientifically, the conclusion is not ill-formed. The manner in which they supported it (methodology) was insufficiently conceived - both from a Frye and Daubert/Joiner/Kumho standpoint [incidentally Joiner (1997) also excluded animal testing also - for the Plaintiff]. I could support their premise very well, showing the that the foundations of what that did are generally accepted and that the of one study in absentia of others has been used a number of times to set acceptable exposure or determine the unlikeliness of disease.

I disagree. That doesn't even make sense. How can the "conclusion" be correct when the "methodology" is not? Particularly since NO ONE else has come to this conclusion. Among other errors, it does not factor in the tenfold margin for error in interspecies "translations". Not to mention the fact that it is not acceptable science for an entire medical association to base their position that human illness is not plausible from mycotoxin inhalation indoors on a SINGLE review of mechanistic work.

In other words, one cannot take one review paper and determine all absence of human illness.

I don't think anyway. Do you think that is sound science?

The mantra has never been "mold and mycotoxins can't cause these illnesses" - it is that the probability under most circumstances, that mycotoxins should not. As for the hollow leg, if you fly, you depend on a hollow leg called an airplane - it isn't magic but explaining that the skin of a plane could be designed to take the stresses of flight would be difficult to properly construct and convey. Ever stand on a coke can - put some product in it and it'll hold well - don't and it won't. Put some product in your argument and it'll hold.

Okay, how bout this product: It is the authors own translation of what the ACOEM mold statement REALLY means.

2003US Chamber/Manhattan Institute Mold StatementTitle: A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold Hardin, PhD (Veritox), Saxon MD (UC), Correen Robbins, PhD,

CIH (Veritox) and Bruce J. Kelman, Ph.D., DABT (Veritox)

Slang: USCC MS, 2003 “Thus the notion that ‘toxic mold’ is an insidious secret ‘killer’ as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim is ‘Junk Science’ unsupported by actual scientific study.â€

Sole references for the above statement: Veritox, 2000 and ACOEM MS 2002

Now tell me again, "The mantra has never been "mold and mycotoxins can't cause these illnesses"

Incidentally Sharon, I have been an expert at about a 60/40 ratio (plaintiff/defense). I've had Daubert challenges (plaintiff side only) - federal, state, local - going back to 1994 (just after Daubert came out). I have a pretty good feel for the ability to support a case - or tell the client not to use me - which happens. A decision like this makes my work (and any expert's work) on either side more difficult - not easier.

It should make it easier because it just knocked the lunacy that these illness could not be happening. Actually, if I had my way, there wouldn't even be expert witnesses. What would be occurring is that all scientists and physicians would be working together to solve not only the building aspect but also the health aspect.

As far as being 60/40, I would say I am 50/50. I am a real estate agent and I am just as sick of seeing my fellow agents gets sued because they are being misled as to the seriousness of the matter as I am of seeing families utterly destroyed because of the shenanigans in the courtroom.

3. You stated:

What does the fact that the defense just got called on the carpet for bogus junk science, have to do with what plaintiff experts are saying? Can you cite for me specifically WHAT plaintiff expert needs to be shot or what scientific papers should be burned, simply because the defense just got publicly nailed for junk science? No offense meant, but this answer you gave appears a bit childish to me. Sorta like, "My Momma? Well your Momma is so fat....."

Sharon, sharon, what's fair is fair [except for Shakespeare]. If one expert is held to the proper production of support then another should be as well. Thus the evidence that mycotoxins do cause harm orally in animals cannot be used to show the it could also cause it by inhalation (thus a restriction of a plaintiff's expert) - it's a two edged sword. If you can't see that then perhaps you should re-enter a reading comprehension course.

My point was that you were off point and you are again. Not making an argument that had anything to do with the topic of discussion. It struck me as a deflection argument.

There is a plaintiff expert who recently ran into some difficulties. What has occurred with this gentleman has nothing to do with this topic of discussion. And the same would be true visa versa. I am saying to sling mud at the plaintiff bar does not address the recent indiscretions of the defense bar. Two different subjects.

4. You stated:

"Thank you for understanding what a hammer this one really is. I will take that as the compliment I know you meant! Can you show me at least even a few little nails?"

I don't eat with a hammer.

I don't cut wood with a hammer.

I don't like hammer time.

It wasn't a compliment. It was a picture that would hopefully let you understand that you're showing yourself as narrow minded and that you could use another tool in the toolbox.

I find that funny. If I was a male and one called me a hammer, it would be considered a great compliment. (Tom DeLay) But because I am female, it is meant to be a derogatory term. Fiddle dee - dee, have spoken too loudly? Notice I am responding in pink.

The fact of the matter is, this is a huge blow for those who try to claim indoor mold exposure does not cause severe illness. You know it and I know it. If you want to get personal and call me narrow minded, go for it. Although I don't find that to be a very professional argument. Nor have I seen any documentation to back up your statements from a professional argument. Which could explain why one would choose to label those with opposing views. It's kind of an "Oh Yea" argument.

It is not relevant to me, nor to the argument whether you consider me a "hammer" or "narrow minded" or whatever.

I know many people are unnecessarily being hurt by much of what is going on over the mold issue. And I will speak out about problem areas that are causing this in order to effect a change, regardless of your evaluation of my character.

Have I hammered home this point? Absolutely. And quite effectively, I feel. ( I do other things besides post on IEQuality.) So does that make me a hammer? No. Tenacious on this point, though because it has been hands down the point that has caused so much damage to so many.

BTW, I would say I am more like a nutcracker or (some similar tool). I don't pound everything. I don't disparage every point made. I only crack nuts. So, if one does not want me to crack open their erroneous writings, then don't write like a nut!

Sharon

[Guest guest]

How about this: there are many contributing factors in an indoor environment besides just mold and mycotoxins that have the ability to make people sick.

Hey Stacey,

Yes, I know. BTW, did you send a letter on behalf of the formaldehyde request? Really easy! Could make a big difference. And you don't have to be from CA.

There are many things that may cause illness indoors. And there is much unknown about the health effects from the matter, whether it be mold, mycotoxins, asbestos, pesticides, etc.

To go back to the point of the article. This is not about science. What this is about is integrity in science. Rather than going into a big dissertation, let me pose a couple of question to the board to see if it makes it any clearer - the significance of this ruling.

Here goes:

There are thousands of research papers that discuss the known ill effects caused by molds and mycotoxins.

On what basis is it established that all of the known illnesses caused by molds and mycotoxins apply if one is exposed anywhere EXCEPT homes, schools and offices? (Not review papers - actually studies.)

On what basis is it determined that one could never inhale enough mold/mold toxins indoors to cause the same illnesses that are known to be caused by inhaling outdoors?

If one could eliminate all the thousands of studies of known illnesses caused by molds/mold toxins from applying to indoor exposure, who would benefit from that elimination of data being applied?

How does adding the criteria of location of causation, change the understanding of illness?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Enlighten me as to what I am missing. (Emphasis added by Havics)

Why are you being so criptic with your messages?

Emphasis added to what? You can't emphasize something if it is not even there. I asked that you "enlighten me". Your response was to add emphasis to... nothing.

Not the Veritox study but as I stated:

the paper cited by the Veritox folks?

What paper cited by the Veritox folks? Are you saying in all of their writings they have only ever cited one paper? If there is a paper you want to know if I am aware of or not in making my evaluation ( which is just like the Judge's - and I have been saying it for over a year) then put it up on the board so I can see what you are talking about.

And if there is this smoking gun mysterious paper, then why couldn't Robbins cite any other before the judge to support the Veritox 'review' piece? And no that is not a second hand statement. I have her testimony and the judges.

Why are you being so evasive about this? You are usually very easy to follow - whether I agree with you or not. Is it because you know you are wrong on this one? What is the deal, Tony?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

1. You Stated:

Of course I have read it. And so did the judge. I have read both version 2000, 2004. If I am quoting "secondary sources" and you are of the opinion these "secondary sources" are not accurate quotes, then what am I missing? Are you saying it should be accepted scientific protocol to take rodent studies, apply some mathematical extrapolations and deduce all human illness is not possible - based solely on this one review paper?

I think I understand. Enlighten me as to what I am missing. (Emphasis added by Havics)

Not the Veritox study but as I stated:

the paper cited by the Veritox folks?

2. You STated:

It should make it easier because it just knocked the lunacy that these illness could not be happening.

It will not. Period.

3. You Stated:

Actually, if I had my way, there wouldn't even be expert witnesses.

Even the bible required two witnesses to move for capital punishment. In absence of a physical witness, the expert witness provides this evidence. You'll note that in the Ballard case she had no experts and still won - albeit if you read the Judge' ruling you'd say she should should have been charged with fraud with regard to her Insurance policy habits.

Tony

........................................................................... "Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PEpH2, LLCPO Box 34140Indianapolis, IN 46234 cell90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%â„ This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this statement.

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:49 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Publishing Re: Veritox 2004 Review Paper & Kell...

1. You stated:

"When I write, I always try to cite references so you all can understand the background information of my point of view. Yet, I don't get that back from you, so that I can better understand your point of view and why you think how you think."

It's true you cite sources, but almost all are secondary. For instance, have you read the paper cited by the Veritox folks? You didn't actually cite it till recently, yet you posted a similar awhile back.

Of course I have read it. And so did the judge. I have read both version 2000, 2004. If I am quoting "secondary sources" and you are of the opinion these "secondary sources" are not accurate quotes, then what am I missing? Are you saying it should be accepted scientific protocol to take rodent studies, apply some mathematical extrapolations and deduce all human illness is not possible - based solely on this one review paper?

I think I understand. Enlighten me as to what I am missing.

I think I cite very often, or note that I am withholding a citation. The listserv folks can judge that themselves.

I think you do too. I have learned much from you. But on this one, you just dismissed what I wrote without providing any logic for your dismissal. What do you mean, you are withholding a citation? I don't understand your logic for this statement. What citation? Why would you withhold it?

Oh - I clearly understand your point of view - and it is a point.

Right back atcha. Only I don't clearly understand the LOGIC for your point cuz you haven't shown me anything to support it.

2. You stated:

"Can you tell me, scientifically, why you disagree? I am just not seeing anyway one could think that the whole foundation for the defense argument of "not plausible, improbable and junk science" getting called what it is ("not plausible, improbable and junk science). -how could that NOT be huge? No longer can the mantra of "mold and mycotoxins can't cause these illnesses" be sung by 'scientists'. The hollow peg leg they were standing on, just got jerked out from under them. What am I missing?"

Scientifically, the conclusion is not ill-formed. The manner in which they supported it (methodology) was insufficiently conceived - both from a Frye and Daubert/Joiner/Kumho standpoint [incidentally Joiner (1997) also excluded animal testing also - for the Plaintiff]. I could support their premise very well, showing the that the foundations of what that did are generally accepted and that the of one study in absentia of others has been used a number of times to set acceptable exposure or determine the unlikeliness of disease.

I disagree. That doesn't even make sense. How can the "conclusion" be correct when the "methodology" is not? Particularly since NO ONE else has come to this conclusion. Among other errors, it does not factor in the tenfold margin for error in interspecies "translations". Not to mention the fact that it is not acceptable science for an entire medical association to base their position that human illness is not plausible from mycotoxin inhalation indoors on a SINGLE review of mechanistic work.

In other words, one cannot take one review paper and determine all absence of human illness.

I don't think anyway. Do you think that is sound science?

The mantra has never been "mold and mycotoxins can't cause these illnesses" - it is that the probability under most circumstances, that mycotoxins should not. As for the hollow leg, if you fly, you depend on a hollow leg called an airplane - it isn't magic but explaining that the skin of a plane could be designed to take the stresses of flight would be difficult to properly construct and convey. Ever stand on a coke can - put some product in it and it'll hold well - don't and it won't. Put some product in your argument and it'll hold.

Okay, how bout this product: It is the authors own translation of what the ACOEM mold statement REALLY means.

2003US Chamber/Manhattan Institute Mold StatementTitle: A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold Hardin, PhD (Veritox), Saxon MD (UC), Correen Robbins, PhD,

CIH (Veritox) and Bruce J. Kelman, Ph.D., DABT (Veritox)

Slang: USCC MS, 2003 “Thus the notion that ‘toxic mold’ is an insidious secret ‘killer’ as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim is ‘Junk Science’ unsupported by actual scientific study.â€

Sole references for the above statement: Veritox, 2000 and ACOEM MS 2002

Now tell me again, "The mantra has never been "mold and mycotoxins can't cause these illnesses"

Incidentally Sharon, I have been an expert at about a 60/40 ratio (plaintiff/defense). I've had Daubert challenges (plaintiff side only) - federal, state, local - going back to 1994 (just after Daubert came out). I have a pretty good feel for the ability to support a case - or tell the client not to use me - which happens. A decision like this makes my work (and any expert's work) on either side more difficult - not easier.

It should make it easier because it just knocked the lunacy that these illness could not be happening. Actually, if I had my way, there wouldn't even be expert witnesses. What would be occurring is that all scientists and physicians would be working together to solve not only the building aspect but also the health aspect.

As far as being 60/40, I would say I am 50/50. I am a real estate agent and I am just as sick of seeing my fellow agents gets sued because they are being misled as to the seriousness of the matter as I am of seeing families utterly destroyed because of the shenanigans in the courtroom.

3. You stated:

What does the fact that the defense just got called on the carpet for bogus junk science, have to do with what plaintiff experts are saying? Can you cite for me specifically WHAT plaintiff expert needs to be shot or what scientific papers should be burned, simply because the defense just got publicly nailed for junk science? No offense meant, but this answer you gave appears a bit childish to me. Sorta like, "My Momma? Well your Momma is so fat....."

Sharon, sharon, what's fair is fair [except for Shakespeare]. If one expert is held to the proper production of support then another should be as well. Thus the evidence that mycotoxins do cause harm orally in animals cannot be used to show the it could also cause it by inhalation (thus a restriction of a plaintiff's expert) - it's a two edged sword. If you can't see that then perhaps you should re-enter a reading comprehension course.

My point was that you were off point and you are again. Not making an argument that had anything to do with the topic of discussion. It struck me as a deflection argument.

There is a plaintiff expert who recently ran into some difficulties. What has occurred with this gentleman has nothing to do with this topic of discussion. And the same would be true visa versa. I am saying to sling mud at the plaintiff bar does not address the recent indiscretions of the defense bar. Two different subjects.

4. You stated:

"Thank you for understanding what a hammer this one really is. I will take that as the compliment I know you meant! Can you show me at least even a few little nails?"

I don't eat with a hammer.

I don't cut wood with a hammer.

I don't like hammer time.

It wasn't a compliment. It was a picture that would hopefully let you understand that you're showing yourself as narrow minded and that you could use another tool in the toolbox.

I find that funny. If I was a male and one called me a hammer, it would be considered a great compliment. (Tom DeLay) But because I am female, it is meant to be a derogatory term. Fiddle dee - dee, have spoken too loudly? Notice I am responding in pink.

The fact of the matter is, this is a huge blow for those who try to claim indoor mold exposure does not cause severe illness. You know it and I know it. If you want to get personal and call me narrow minded, go for it. Although I don't find that to be a very professional argument. Nor have I seen any documentation to back up your statements from a professional argument. Which could explain why one would choose to label those with opposing views. It's kind of an "Oh Yea" argument.

It is not relevant to me, nor to the argument whether you consider me a "hammer" or "narrow minded" or whatever.

I know many people are unnecessarily being hurt by much of what is going on over the mold issue. And I will speak out about problem areas that are causing this in order to effect a change, regardless of your evaluation of my character.

Have I hammered home this point? Absolutely. And quite effectively, I feel. ( I do other things besides post on IEQuality.) So does that make me a hammer? No. Tenacious on this point, though because it has been hands down the point that has caused so much damage to so many.

BTW, I would say I am more like a nutcracker or (some similar tool). I don't pound everything. I don't disparage every point made. I only crack nuts. So, if one does not want me to crack open their erroneous writings, then don't write like a nut!

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Please stop preaching to the choir. We’re not the enemy. I mean no disrespect. You are obviously a caring and passionate about your positions, which is a good thing. You are obviously intelligent and spend a lot of time educating yourself and others, which are also good things. I just think this discussion with this crowd could use a break.

Mark,

I posted something. There was a response (kind of). I responded. Are you saying I should not post anymore responses when they are received?

As far as my not understanding the science or the lack of integrity in science. I have NEVER accused anyone on this board of lacking integrity. I have stated over, and over, and over again, I am of the opinion the building science is progressing nicely.

Nor have I EVER stated that everyone who does defense work, lacks integrity. Do some? Yes. Do some on the plaintiff side? Yes.

I get called a "hammer" or "narrow minded" in a discussion of a topic. Yet you refer to those terms as "patient". How does that work?

As far as me not changing any scientist's minds. You are probably right. Where do you think a Realtor gets understanding of science? From SCIENTISTS. There are many who know what I am discussing when I write of the significance of this ruling and how it pertains to integrity in science and the medical understanding of the matter.

How do you think the judge became aware enough of the matter to make a ruling? From SCIENTISTS.

I attached this once, but will attach again. I think some of you are speaking without reading and assuming because I am not a CIH, I know nothing of medicine or research.

Look again. This is extremely significant. And if nobody posts a response back to this, then Mark, I will gladly drop it. I have made my point - not just to you, but to the courts, many physicians and many scientists.

Here is a hint for you to understand the significance of increased understanding. You know that new CDC doc? Did you happen to notice there is a particular reference source missing?

WR,

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

Regarding:

To go

back to the point of the article. This is not about

science. What this is about is integrity in science. Rather than

going into a big dissertation, let me pose a couple of question to the board

to see if it makes it any clearer - the significance of this ruling.

To describe the entire problem as the lack

of integrity in science is much like blaming conspiracy theories for all things

that go wrong.  Are there scumbags out

there? Sure.  Do

most scientist fall into that category? I certainly hope not.  I disagree with a whole lot of your

assumptions.  I also agree that some of

what you say has merit, but can not be proved. 

Do I lack integrity?  I hope not

but you are the judge, if you must.  

I have watched this conversation for a

long time now and can say that it is the same old whine to the same crowd.  I doubt you have convinced the scientist on

this list of anything for the reasons that Tony has so patiently laid

forth.  Just because something seems

obvious to you does not make it science. 

You can’t throw Koch’s postulate out the window because it

is inconvenient or because you don’t think it matters.

Please stop preaching to the choir.  We’re not the enemy.  I mean no disrespect.  You are obviously a caring and passionate

about your positions, which is a good thing. 

You are obviously intelligent and spend a lot of time educating yourself

and others, which are also good things.  I just think this discussion with this crowd

could use a break.

Mark Doughty